Depends what you mean by a split. John Lennon probably still announces his "divorce" from the band by the end of 1969. With or without Allen Klein the Get Back project fails. But without Klein there will be slightly less tension. The Eastmans become the Beatles managers-although John might refuse to sign with them out of an arguably justified fear of favoritism. However without Klein pushing him further towards an anti-Eastman position he's less likely to be as overly hostile to them unless their favoritism becomes absurd somehow. Consequently, Paul isn't as alienated from everyone else. Conversely the John and George relationship suffers. Without Klein George doesn't have an avenue to regain John's good graces after having expressed open hostility to Yoko Ono for about a year to the point where there might have been a fist fight over it.
I don't know that things were definitely so far gone that John would announce he wants his divorce ITTL. Sure he was sick of the "McCartney bandwagon", and getting his in-laws in to manage the group certainly wouldn't help, but it seemed to be Paul sticking to his guns despite the other three going with Klein that seemed to really bring the differences in to sharp focus - 'he always thinks he's right, thinks he knows better than us, treats us like his backing band' etc. Agree about John and George, but don't think it's insurmountable.
If they make a version of Abbey Road the core of the medley is different. You Never Give Me Your Money is a response to Klein and wouldn't exist without him.
Yeah hadn't considered that - I love YNGMYM so that'd be a big miss for me. Would I trade it off for another album or two? I probably would, but it'd be like giving up your right arm.
The Beatles finances are probably better with the just having the Eastmans managing them. Bit of a toss-up. Klein was talented at contract renegotiation etc. Without him they may not secure as favorable terms for the 1969 contract. I think the Eastmans probably would renegotiate the 1967 contract conditions almost mandated such an effort for anyone who managed them by that point. However without the fight the Beatles stand a chance to secure NEMS and most importantly, Northern Songs Limited.
Also, Klein was enriching himself to fuck off the back of them. Taking 20% of the lot, and not just the renegotiated fees as promised. No way would the Eastmans pull that one. I agree they might not get quite the deal Klein got by being incredibly obnoxious, but as they wouldn't be taking 20% of the total The Beatles would be end net up, without even factoring in NEMS and Northern Songs.
One of the big myths of the split is that everyone wanted out by September 1969. Aside from one important fact the Beatles were more intact than they had been. Yes-George wanted a solo album. But he wasn't clear he wanted to end the Beatles. Solo album and the band continuing are not mutually exclusive. The reason why the Beatles split in 1969 is because John was done. That's hard to avoid by January.
Agree with you here - and I think a lot of John wanting out is down to getting sick of McCartney, which was helped along by Klein. His feeling of having Klein in his corner certainly gave him the courage to head to the door (though interestingly he never quite managed to open that door until Paul had flung it open)
However without Klein the process is smoother. Let it Be the album and film would still have to be released due to the UA contract. Again any manager would want to fulfill that contract if only to forestall a lawsuit. But this time Paul's involved. Without Klein Paul is likely to be deeply involved in decisions he absented himself from. End result is a version of Let it Be that he approves of. Obviously since Paul more or less gets his way where management is concerned-though John might hire his own counsel to protect his interests-there won't be a lawsuit. No lawsuit is huge. That's why the split became public and that's why it was permanent. John was capable of changing his mind but the point where a split becomes public and is in court-it becomes much harder to walk back.
Yeah, the lawsuit was the end game, though the writing was on the wall long before (remember the split as announced in 'McCartney' in April, and the writ wasn't fired til New Years) As I see it, it was Macca's only option in the face of what was coming his way, but it was the absolute end game. A lot of the chat in the music papers from the other three even after McCartney came out was about everything settling down and them getting back to the studio.
Without the lawsuit there's a possibility the Beatles might work together again as soon as 1971. Sure you'd see solo albums in 1970-but their existence doesn't preclude the band's. Paul's solo records are different because of the extent to which his emotional state circa late were driven by his pain over the fight with Klein.
I really rate McCartney and Ram so it'd be shame for them to be unduly altered, but there you go.
All things equal as I've said elsewhere the Concert for Bangladesh is credited to the Beatles. Without a lawsuit and public split there's a much higher chance of all of the Beatles appearing. If that happens the album is credited to them.
After a year of easing pressures it's conceivable that a real studio album might follow.
I'm interested in the idea of a Beatles Bangladesh, but it's about whether George would feel the push to perform if he hadn't been solo. If he was still with the group, would All Things Must Pass have been so ambitious? And would it have got the reception it did? (Superb record by the way, though the way overblown production makes some of it a tough listen in 2016)
But then we're at a point where at the least we're facing long periods of no activity. John will still move to the United States and end up stuck in an immigration limbo state. This makes recording new Beatle material much harder-not impossible but difficult to the point where even under the best of circumstances it doesn't happen much. Paul develops a side project of some sort because he isn't going to want to slow his schedule down to accommodate John.
Of course my idea is the optimistic view-the pessimistic view is that without Klein John just quits earlier and there is no ATL version of Abbey Road.
Se this is where I don't know I follow - would he still go to New York without being solo? It was very much part of the Primal Scream, 'JohnandYoko', counterculture figurehead scene he'd taken on partly as a result of the split and disengagement from Paul.
Fascinating response either way, thanks for your input.